Standing Committee C

[Mrs. Ray Michie in the Chair]

High Hedges Bill

John Taylor: I beg to move,
 That, if proceedings on the High Hedges Bill are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday 28th March at half-past Ten o'clock.
 Good morning, Mrs. Michie. Welcome to our proceedings on the High Hedges Bill, which I have chosen—perhaps trivially—to call my ``Height and Light'' Bill. We all know of constituents who have been afflicted by a particular misery to which the English law usage does not recommend itself. The Bill is an attempt to address that nuisance and alleviate the problems of our constituents. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Ray Michie: I remind the Committee that there is a financial resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Clause 1 Complaints to which this act applies

Clause 1 - Complaints to which this act applies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: I do not intend to weary members of the Committee, for whose support I am grateful, by talking at length to the clauses. Those who attended the debate on Second Reading will appreciate that there was reasonably broad support in the House for the Bill, so I shall not be self-indulgent this morning.
 Clause 1 sets out the complaints to which the Bill applies. Let us suppose that a person owns or occupies a domestic property and there is a high hedge on someone else's land. If that person thinks that the hedge obstructs the light to his property and affects his reasonable enjoyment of that property, he or she can complain to the local authority. The Bill uses the shorthand term ``neighbouring land'' to describe where the hedge is situated. However, that does not mean that the hedge has to be growing in the land next door to a person's house. It could be situated several gardens down the road, but if it casts a shadow across a person's property and impacts on that person's enjoyment, he can complain to the local authority. 
 In addition, the hedge does not have to be growing in someone else's garden. It could be situated on parkland that backs on to a person's property. It is the effect that the hedge has on a person's quality of life that is important, not where it is located. There is also special provision for the owner of an empty property to bring a complaint under the Bill. For example, the owner may not be able to sell the house because of the high hedge. Such a situation is not unknown. The Committee will note that the Bill is limited to complaints about obstruction and light. High hedges can, of course, be the cause of other problems such as blocked views and worries about roots. 
 The Bill deliberately concentrates on the main problem rather than trying to solve all the difficulties that people encounter. Obstruction of light tends to be the main problem. It is also the factor that most readily lends itself to objective assessment. The Building Research Establishment, in association with the Tree Advice Trust, has been asked by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to develop an objective way of assessing the obstruction of light by hedges. The aim is to come up with tests that show whether a hedge is causing any obstruction of light and, if so, by how much it needs to be reduced to remedy the problem. I recommend that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - High hedges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 2 defines high hedges. It makes it clear that the problem concerns evergreen hedges over 2 m in height, which includes leylandii and other coniferous hedges such as Lawson cypress and western red cedar. It also covers non-coniferous species such as laurel and privet.
 The Bill is not intended to apply to individual trees, which can sometimes be the focus of disputes between neighbours. It does not set out to remedy all the perceived problems with trees, nor does it seek to discourage the planting of suitable trees in gardens. It concentrates on the main problem—tall, dense screens of foliage. 
 A complaint may be made to the local authority only if the hedge in question exceeds 2 m in height. That does not mean, nor should it be implied, that hedges over 2 m in height are necessarily problem hedges that should be trimmed. Whether such a hedge causes an unreasonable obstruction of light will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and will take account of objective tests being developed by the BRE. The effect of the Bill is to provide a starting point with some degree of certainty. One cannot make a complaint to the local authority unless the hedge exceeds the 2 m threshold. Equally, those on the other side of the hedge can be assured that they will not find themselves on the receiving end of a complaint, providing that the hedge in question is maintained at 2 m or lower. I recommend that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Rowe: I have no desire to impede the progress of the Bill, but I would like to put on record an interesting phenomenon that I encountered. If one lives in a conservation area, one has to obtain permission from the local authority to cut a tree if its diameter at chest height is more than 7 cm. Extraordinarily, when I wished to trim a leylandii hedge, I had to obtain permission from my local authority because each tree in the hedge was out of control and over the 7 cm limit. I mention that to my hon. Friend as an example of a way in which local authorities can be in the position of arbiter in cases within conservation areas. In a sense, one would have to complain to the local authority about the local authority.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall be brief because I wholeheartedly support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on introducing it. On Second Reading, I registered my concern about cases in which hedges were more than 2 m in height but caused no problem with the obstruction of light. I suggested amending the Bill to introduce an overall limit of 4 m, which a householder could insist that the local authority enforce. That may complicate the Bill, but the overall height is significant whether or not light is excluded. At some point, I hope that changes can be made to limit the overall height of hedges to 4 m or 3 m—as I said on Second Reading—although perhaps not in Committee because of a shortage of time. I have not tabled an amendment because I do not want to complicate matters today, but that it is an important matter.

Bob Ainsworth: As was made clear on Second Reading, the Government support the Bill.
 I listened carefully on Second Reading to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), which I understood to be about the desirability of including an absolute limit, in all circumstances, on the height of evergreen or leylandii hedges. The effect of that would be that even if a hedge were generally considered acceptable, legislation would prevent it from exceeding a maximum height. That it not necessary or desirable because there may be circumstances—if we think seriously then we will know that there are—in which evergreen hedges exceed 4 m and are acceptable to all concerned. If such hedges do not cause complaint, it would be wrong for legislation to state that they must be cut back. 
 My hon. Friend will recognise that the matter must be kept tight to ensure that the Bill passes through the House without creating unnecessary complaints or opposition. However, it is stated elsewhere in the Bill that light is the only objective criterion—that will be the grounds for making a complaint. That matter was discussed in the consultation process. Local authorities and Hedgeline, which has done much work to secure legislation on behalf of people throughout the country who are suffering because of the problem, accept and believe that light will be used as a proxy for many other problems. Clause 16 provides that if light is not an effective criterion for judging the complaints that arise, the Secretary of State may, by regulation, extend the powers of the Bill to cover complaints that have not been dealt with satisfactorily. 
 I—and people who were consulted—hope and believe that the overwhelming majority of cases and the problems that hon. Members have heard about from their constituents, will be dealt with by the powers of the Bill and by using light as a proxy for other problems that may be caused by high hedges. If that does not occur, amendments may be made by regulation at a later date. In that way, we will avoid the overall ban on hedges exceeding a certain height that was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North on Second Reading, which he wants to explore further today.

Andrew Rowe: As one who comes from Kent, where fruit farmers have very high hedges that act as wind breaks, I find the proposition of an overall limit of 6 m on the height of hedges counterproductive. Many such hedges are in virtually open territory.

Caroline Flint: I do not wish to impede progress. Clause 2 refers to:
``two or more adjacent evergreens''. 
A number of my constituents have mentioned that the problem of light being blocked out by trees and shrubs arises because they live in small houses with relatively small windows. In some cases, the planting of a single leylandii in a particular place may effectively block out light completely. My constituent, Mr. Birkett, is involved in such a case. All the light has been blocked to his kitchen window, which is side-on to the neighbouring house. Perhaps the other provision to which the Minister referred will deal with complaints not covered by the Bill at a later date. For people living in relatively small houses with relatively small windows, just one triffid-like shrub or tree—whatever one wants to call them—can effectively shut out all the light from a person's home or rooms, without even forming a barrier.

John Taylor: I shall start by responding briefly to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). When I read John Wyndham's ``The Day of the Triffids'', it frightened me, and I could not sleep well for a couple of days afterwards. The hon. Lady graphically illustrated the menace and misery that can be caused in such circumstances.
 I express my gratitude to the Minister for intervening with authority in aid of the Bill. I would not have made such progress without his support and that of other hon. Members. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that a remedial notice under the Bill would override the conservation area controls. I do not know whether he would regard that as a reassurance; perhaps he would. 
 The hon. Member for Luton, North was good enough to recognise that, at this stage in a Parliament, the time available for amendments is scarce. However, I assure him that the letter of statute will have a travelling companion in the form of guidance notes on the implementation of the Bill, which will be issued to local authorities by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Although such guidance does not have the full force of law, local authorities will be glad to have it. Such collateral consideration—or margin notes, if I may so describe them—will be afforded and carefully thought through by the Department. I speak as an Opposition Member—I am not claiming in aid a Department of State—but I am confident that collateral notes and guidance will be issued, which will be helpful to local authorities. My experience of local authorities is that they will say, ``Please tell us how to implement this'', and, when the guidance notes arrive, ``Thank you very much.'' 
 I have attempted a brief response to the stand part debate, and I hope that the Committee will support the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Domestic property

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 3 explains what is meant by domestic property. It makes it clear that people can make a complaint under the Bill if they believe that the high hedge in question is causing an unreasonable obstruction of light, either to their garden or their home. One person might be concerned only about the effect of a hedge on a garden. Another might be concerned about a lack of light coming into a living room, perhaps in one of the small houses to which the hon. Member for Don Valley referred. A complaint could be made under the Bill in either case, or in both cases.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Procedure for dealing with complaints

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 4 sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints. A complaint goes to the local authority—the district, borough or unitary council, or Welsh equivalent—which may, if it wishes, charge a fee. The Bill provides for the Government to set a maximum fee as well as enabling local authorities to refund fees in appropriate cases.

David Madel: Clause 4 deals with the tricky subject of money. Clause 4(1)(b) refers to a complaint that
``is accompanied by such fee (if any) as the authority may determine.'' 
Clause 4(8) states that a fee 
``must not exceed the prescribed amount''. 
If a fee is to be charged, will it be uniform throughout the country, and what will the local authority do with the money? 
 I hope that there will not be differential fees, because that would cause trouble. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Luton, North is present, as he will know that the subsidy for pensioners' bus fares in Luton differs from that in south Bedfordshire. I will not explain the reasons for that, but I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull that differential fees might cause controversy.

Sydney Chapman: I, too, believe that there should be a standard fee, if that is possible and practicable.
 Clause 4(8) states that local authorities have the power to decide whether to return the fee. I hope that they will do that as a matter of course when the complaint has been upheld and the complainant does not have adequate means. That is a matter not for the law but for the local authority's interpretation and sympathetic consideration. 
 The fee should cover the cost of processing a complaint or application, but local authorities will not find that cost a heavy burden and they should return the fee in the circumstances that I have outlined.

Kelvin Hopkins: I echo the comments of the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken.
 On Second Reading, I expressed the concern that the fee should be small enough not to deter the less wealthy from applying for hedges to be trimmed. I also believe that local authorities should be able to charge difficult neighbours who refuse to trim their hedges, but that would complicate the Bill and I do not wish to delay it. That is, perhaps, a thought for the future.

Bob Ainsworth: I want to clarify matters. I am sure that the Bill's promoter will explain his views and intentions. A few days after Second Reading, the House passed a money resolution late at night and following a short debate. If the Bill is enacted, it is intended that a maximum fee that local authorities can charge will be set in regulations. It is not intended that the fee should cover all the costs incurred by the local authority. Issues should not therefore arise in relation to the charge made by local authorities and what they do with that money.
 During the consultation it was estimated that such complaints would cost about £200 to process. If the maximum charge was set at above £100, the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North might arise: people without substantial means might be discouraged from making a complaint. It would be a case not of surplus money but of a charge being levied by the local authority to go some way towards offsetting the costs that it incurs. 
 I do not want hon. Members to misunderstand our intention. We believe that, generally speaking, the money will be returned to successful complainants. Such a lobby is asking Parliament to pass the Bill because, at present, people in such circumstances have no redress other than the courts, which are prohibitively expensive for dealing with those complaints. During the consultation, no great alarm was expressed at the thought that people would be obliged to spend a small amount if they were given a route to deal with the problem.

Andrew Rowe: The Minister is making a lot of sense. Does he agree that when the Bill becomes an Act, two developments should result? First, the owners of such hedges will quickly realise that they have an obligation to keep them under control, which they do not at present admit, so the number of complaints should fall in time. Secondly, it might be worth making the obligation to keep such hedges under control one of the elements in the seller's pack that the Government are introducing. Gradually, public understanding of the matter would increase.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that once people know that a remedy for the problem exists, many cases will be solved amicably. That is the view of everyone who was consulted. The Bill should be used only in the event of intransigence in unreasonable circumstances.
 Hon. Members referred to triffid hedges. It is not leylandii or any other species that is the problem, but the people who own the hedges and their indifference to their neighbours' plight. As people realise that a remedy is available that they can easily and relatively cheaply use to deal with the problem, it is hoped that the problem will go away or be reduced to a relatively small number of cases in a couple of years. The costs of the appeal mechanism to local authorities and the Government should only exist in any quantity for the first two or three years, until existing cases have largely been dealt with and attitudes have changed. 
 The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent refers to seller's packs. He will notice that, under a later clause, if an order is placed against a hedge, it will become a land charge. Anyone who tries to sell or purchase the property will be told about the problem and that an order has been applied to the hedge involved.

John Taylor: To endeavour to reply to the debate on clause 4 after the Minister has spoken is, to some extent, to gild the lily. Hardly anything is left to say. He worked through my checklist, right down to land charges.

Lynne Jones: It is worth pointing out that although we would like local authorities to keep their fees as low as possible—in any case, a maximum will apply—it is important to impose a fee to inhibit people from making vexatious claims against their neighbours.

John Taylor: I could not agree more. I believe that one of the hon. Lady's constituents incurred enormous costs to achieve a remedy through the civil courts, with all the uncertainties of the English law on nuisance. Her constituent would have felt that paying £100 to Birmingham city council for redress would have been infinitely preferable to the amount that that constituent ultimately had to pay.
 The Minister elegantly covered the point about land charges. The answer to the general question about consistency throughout the country is that £100 is the maximum. My opinion is that the maximum will become standard but that it will be alleviated in cases of hardship. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Remedial notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: The clause deals with remedial notices drawn up by a local authority which set out the action to remedy an obstruction of light caused by a high hedge. In practice, those notices will contain a specific requirement to reduce the height of the hedge; they might also contain an on-going requirement to maintain the hedge to prevent problems arising in future. The point made earlier about the registered land charge is relevant.
 The local authority cannot require removal of a hedge, or reduction of its height to less than 2 m. The clause sets out in detail what must be included in the remedial notice: as well as the work to be carried out on the hedge, it must specify when the initial remedial work should be carried out and explain the consequences of failing to comply with the notice.

Lynne Jones: I should like to highlight subsection (2)(d), which refers to action preventing recurrence of the nuisance. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how that will be done—how the local authority can ensure that the problem will not recur?

John Taylor: The matter will be neighbour-policed and the aggrieved person will know whether the remedy has brought satisfaction. If it has not, the aggrieved person will return to the local authority, so a specific self-starting inspection will not be necessary. The local authority will have a vested interest--intangible, but real--in ensuring that its remedial notice is complied with, as it would be difficult for a local authority to maintain its position as an enforcer if it did not follow through.
 I believe that the problem will be self-solving because the aggrieved person will know whether the grievance has been addressed. If satisfaction has not be obtained, in Solihull as in Birmingham, the person who made the complaint and parted with £100 will return quickly to the local authority to state that he has not received satisfaction.

David Madel: If a property is unoccupied and a notice has been agreed, can the local authority trim the hedge?

John Taylor: The Bill later provides that after a remedial notice has been served and if the owner of the property does not comply, penalties can be imposed, ultimately on a daily basis. In the final analysis, the local authority can trim the hedge and deliver the bill to the offending party. Remedies of last resort are available and they become more severe, as they should.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Variation or withdrawal of remedial notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: The subject of clause 6 follows on from our most recent exchange in Committee. A remedial notice could last for ever, or at least for as long as the hedge remains on the site. It is therefore important that the notice is not set in stone. Clause 6 provides that a local authority can vary or withdraw a remedial notice in certain circumstances.
 The Bill covers two main sets of circumstances in which such provisions may be used, the first of which is when both parties apply jointly to have the remedial notice varied or withdrawn. Such an application can be made at any time after the notice is issued. For example, the local authority might specify a lower height than the complainant or hedge owner is happy about and together they could agree a higher limit. New occupants of the properties might later decide that there is no need for the formality of a remedial notice and that they are happy to rely on amicable agreement. 
 Secondly, either party can apply for a variation or withdrawal of a notice, but the local authority will only look at the matter if there has been a material change in circumstances since it was last considered. An application can be made only after the period for reducing the height of the hedge—for its first cut, as it were—has passed. In practice, people could apply only to vary or remove any continuing obligation to keep the hedge at its reduced height. 
 The Bill provides powers that allow the Secretary of State to set down regulations about the procedure for dealing with those cases. I understand that the Government intend to consult on draft regulations. Final regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Appeal against remedial notice or decision of relevant authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 7 provides for a right of appeal against the local authority decision. If, when dealing with a complaint, the authority issues a remedial notice requiring work on the hedge, an appeal may be made to the Secretary of State. If the local authority decides not to issue a remedial notice, the complainant could appeal.
 Subsequent clauses deal with the appeals procedures and the Secretary of State's powers to determine such cases. The provisions are intended to ensure that those affected by the Bill are guaranteed a fair and impartial hearing before their respective civil rights are determined. A remedial notice, or the decision in question, is suspended while the appeal is being determined.

Sydney Chapman: I warmly welcome and support clause 7, but I should like to point out two matters arising from it. First, although the Bill is not concerned with strict planning law, for the first time the third party is being given the right of appeal. I welcome that because normally the applicant is the owner of the land and the high hedge, but the complainant in cases under the Bill is not the owner. I welcome that unique proposal and hope it becomes part of an Act of Parliament before the beginning of May.
 Secondly, under planning law and rights of appeal there is a six-month period in which the applicant can choose whether to appeal. That period is often abused to spin out the matter, which is regrettable. I am pleased that that has been shortened to 28 days in the Bill, as that is sufficient time for the owner of the high hedge to decide whether he or she wants to appeal. I welcome those two exceptional points in clause 7.

David Madel: My brief point follows on from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). The clause deals with grievances—with people who are upset or disappointed. If a person thinks that the local authority is being slow or inattentive to his or her grievance, is he or she to approach the Secretary of State or the local ombudsman? I am a great believer in the local ombudsman and was present when the law establishing the post was passed, but I have found it hard to explain to constituents the difference between the local ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman.
 The public are slowly coming to understand the local ombudsman's powers, but local authorities could help. Perhaps they could insert a note with the yearly council tax bills, reminding council tax payers of who the local ombudsman is and what his powers are. The public need to be made aware of whether they go to the Secretary of State or to the local ombudsman when they have a grievance about the local authority's performance.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall clarify the position as best I can, according to my understanding of the Bill. Hon. Members will notice that, although local authorities are not to be tied down to a specific period within which they must deal with a complaint, the word ``reasonable'' is used. If a local authority were to fail to process complaints that it had received in what was deemed to be a reasonable time, recourse could be had to the local ombudsman, just as in cases of maladministration brought against a local authority.
 As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, in the event of a complaint being either upheld or rejected, all parties would have to be properly notified of the local authority's decision and any appeal would have to be made within 28 days. That does not mean that action to rectify the problem with the hedge would have to be taken within 28 days; for that, an appropriate compliance period would be set. I understand that concerns have been raised about the impact on wildlife if people were required to cut down hedges at certain times of year. The local authority could take such issues into account when setting the compliance period. However, once the local authority had notified all parties of its decision to reject or accept a complaint and of the action required, there would be a period of only 28 days in which either party could appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision.

John Taylor: I am always glad to be informed about planning matters by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. As a distinguished architect, he is something of an expert on such matters. He might share my satisfaction that the proposed treatment of hedges contains a parallel to the treatment of a fence. One can erect a fence of up to two metres in height on the boundary of one's property without planning permission. The Bill makes consistent the permissible heights of a hedge and of a fence. That is sensible, if not necessarily elegant.
 The planning inspectorate's role in dealing with appeals is important. It must be said that people who own high hedges, too, have rights under law and should be entitled to go to appeal if they so wish. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir David Madel), I have always supported the concept and role of the local ombudsman. One of my constituents once asked me what the difference was between maladministration, for which one would go to the ombudsman, and perversity, for which one would go to a judicial review. My frank answer was that the difference is the cost: one goes to the ombudsman for nothing, whereas one goes to judicial review at enormous expense. 
 My hon. Friend's remarks were well placed. I assure him that I believe the local government ombudsman to be the proper recourse for a complainant to the local authority who feels that the authority has not adequately attended to the complaint. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Appeals procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: The clause allows the Secretary of State to set down in regulations the procedure for dealing with appeals made under clause 7. It contains a long list of examples of provisions that the regulations might cover, from specifying the grounds of appeal to the award of costs. As with other procedural regulations under the Bill, such as those on varying or withdrawing a remedial notice, the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. The Government intend that there should be prior consultation on draft regulations.
 I particularly draw the Committee's attention to clause 8(3), which requires the Secretary of State to appoint another person to hear and determine appeals under the Bill. The intention is to delegate all appeals to the planning inspectorate, which is accustomed to considering similar neighbourhood issues such as privacy and amenity in connection with planning appeals. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Determination or withdrawal of appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 9 describes the Secretary of State's powers in determining appeals. In practice, of course, those powers will be exercised by the planning inspectorate. The clause enables it to allow or dismiss appeals, either in total or in part, to quash or vary remedial notices and to issue such notices in cases in which the local authority decides not to do so.

Lynne Jones: In certain circumstances, the aggrieved party might go to appeal because of the inspectorate's decision to issue a remedial notice following the failure of the local authority to do so. As I understand it, the owner of the hedge would then have no right of appeal against that remedial notice. It is worth considering the possibility of taking a second look at that, perhaps through a referral to the parliamentary ombudsman.

John Taylor: I am afraid that I was somewhat distracted during the course of the hon. Lady's comments. I undertake to speak to her about any reservations that she may have—possibly this morning, if she will permit that, and certainly before the Bill makes further progress, as I am anxious to secure her continuing support.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not know whether this is helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that the Secretary of State—or the planning inspectorate exercising powers passed to it by the Secretary of State—will have to take into account all views, including those of both parties, when deciding on an appeal against a remedial notice. Both sides will be able to put their point of view before the decision is taken. I do not know whether that is satisfactory response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), but I assure her that the Bill ensures that both the person who makes the complaint and the person about whom the complaint is made are able to express their point of view during the appeal process.

John Taylor: I conclude my occupancy of the Floor, as I suspect that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak wishes to speak again.

Lynne Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to obstruct the Bill in any way and I shall support the clause, but I thought it important to make that point so that people are aware of it. Although it is likely to be a rare occurrence, the Government should bear it in mind.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: If the Bill is to bring relief to hedge sufferers, it is essential that it has effective enforcement provisions that will exert pressure on recalcitrant owners to cut the hedge and keep it trimmed. I agree entirely with hon. Members who said that a general awareness that the provision is law will lead to a general improvement. The Bill might not make the problem go away, but it will diminish it significantly by reducing the estimated backlog of 3,000 extant grievances and establishing a heightened sense of responsibility.
 Under the clause, failure to comply with a remedial notice will constitute an offence punishable on summary conviction before magistrates by a fine not exceeding £1,000. There is also provision for daily fines where the requisite work remains outstanding following a court order. In other words, defiance of the order by the offending party will be analogous with contempt and will be subject to a fine. I should point out that people will not be prosecuted simply for growing hedges. The provisions will come into play only where someone refuses to comply with the local authority's remedial notice. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Remedial action by relevant authority etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: The clause is another element of the enforcement package. It will give local authorities the power to go on to land and carry out work specified in the remedial notice when the owner or occupier of the land has failed to comply with the requirements. The cost of the work will then be recovered from that person by the local authority. Although the Bill does not state as much, local authorities will be able to exercise those powers whether or not criminal proceedings are brought under clause 10.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Orders and regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: As we have gone through the Bill, I have identified several areas in which the Secretary of State has power to make regulations. The clause sets out the parliamentary procedures that he must follow when exercising those powers.
 There are two types of regulation in the Bill. We have considered the first type, which addresses detailed procedural matters such as appeals and applications to vary remedial notices. As I said, they will be subject to negative resolution procedure and I understand that the Government will consult on them. The second type of regulation is contained in clause 16. It will allow the Secretary of State to extend the scope of the Bill by amending its provisions. I shall explain why that power is necessary when we reach clause 16. Proposals to allow primary legislation to be amended by regulation are always sensitive matters, so the Bill requires that regulations made under clause 16 must be debated in both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Power to amend sections 1 and 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: As I said when we began to consider the Bill, it is limited to complaints about obstruction of light and certain types of high hedge. It will solve the main problem cases and I understand that consultation responses support that view. Nevertheless, experience might reveal that the Bill does not cover particular high hedge problems that we have not yet thought of, in which case people could wait years for another Bill to be introduced. The clause foreshortens matters by allowing the Secretary of State to bring other grounds of complaint within the scope of the legislation and to alter the definition of ``high hedge'' by regulation. As I said when we discussed clause 13, given the sensitivities involved, such regulations would be debated in both Houses of Parliament under affirmative resolution procedure.

Andrew Rowe: May I ask my hon. Friend whether matters such as root peril or the type of hedge involved might be included? There are types of hedges that shelter undesirable pests, or hedges that in extreme cases create terrible problems for asthmatics.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased that the clause is included in the Bill because it leaves open the possibility of extending the legislation. I do not want to set up a silly example, but if a beautiful view of mountains and hills from the window of a house were blocked by a neighbour's 50 ft leylandii, the amenity, the value of the property and the pleasure derived from living in the house would be damaged. In short, there are circumstances in which overall height limits might be considered as a case for future legislation. I am pleased that the clause is included because it leaves that possibility open.

David Madel: I should like to add to the point about roots made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. I presume that if the roots of a hedge start to interfere with the public drainage system, immediate action could be taken without going though a lengthy procedure. I also presume that if the roots of a high hedge interfered with the drainage system serving a house, or with the electricity, gas or any essential service to the house, it would not be necessary to go through what is, understandably, an involved procedure to obtain action to get it stopped.

John Taylor: The hon. Member for Luton, North has returned to the point about overall height and welcomes the flexibility available to the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary procedure. He is not only consistent, but his analysis is correct. This is a ground-breaking Bill. Several attempts have been made in the past to address the problem and this is the distillation of the best thinking to date—a state of the art provision, as good as we have got. However, if the Bill is enacted, we shall learn from the collective experience of local authorities, individual cases, exceptions and anomalies and we can build on the provisions in the light of that experience. We are breaking new ground, but we are not complacently presuming that we have covered everything.

Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend is hedging his bets.

John Taylor: That remark is probably rooted in experience.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent referred to roots and different varieties of hedge, but it is openly conceded that the Bill does not deal with roots, which create different problems. Trimming the height of a hedge may produce a collateral saving in terms of root nuisance, but the Bill does not attempt to address that. It is the sort of area in which, with the benefit of experience, a Secretary of State might wish to go further, and the clause makes that possible. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: Clause 18 applies the Bill's provisions to the Crown, although the Crown, as opposed to its employees, will not be liable to prosecution for a criminal offence. A local authority will be able to investigate and determine complaints about high hedges on Crown land—for example, if a hedge on land owned by a Government Department affects neighbouring domestic property. I hope that that brief explanation provides clarification.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mrs Michie. This may be a mild abuse of a point of order, but it is well intended. I am sure that members of the Committee will want to join me in thanking you for your kind and helpful chairing of our proceedings. It has always been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and today has been typically so. In 18 years as a Member of Parliament, I have not had a private Member's Bill before. It has been an interesting experience I also thank the Minister and, although I cannot see them, as they are not in the Room, his officials, who have been particularly helpful to me. Finally, I thank friends and colleagues from all parties who have helped me to get this far. I might even make the statute book—who knows? The determinant of whether the Bill reaches the statute book will not be want of support, but it might be want of time.

Ray Michie: Thank you for that point of order. I have enjoyed chairing the Committee. The sitting has been one of the swiftest and most co-operative that I have ever chaired and it has been a pleasant experience. I add my thanks to the staff who have helped with our proceedings, especially our Clerk, Nick Walker, for his invaluable, clever and helpful information.
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.